New Testament Commentary Picks

Many pastors live and die by our books. Commentaries are particularly important. A pastor without commentaries can be like a carpenter without a hammer and saw. My collection is hardly authoritative. But what I’ve compiled here is my recommendations for each of the books of the New Testament. I’m sure I don’t own all the good options out there. I have a running “wishlist” and am more than happy to take suggestions. There are several NT books which I don’t preach from as often which I have fewer resources for, but I have made sure that I have a few options for each. But these are the standouts from my experience and interaction. I’ve tried to pick one “must have” for this list. For some, it’s obviously harder than others. So if your favourite isn’t here, it may be because I don’t own it or have never used it, or perhaps because it was good, but I prefer another. So here goes…

Matthew: hands down my favourite is R.T. France’s NICNT. I love this commentary. I used a library copy of Hagner’s WBC for some stuff in seminary, and it might be more detailed than France, especially on the technical Greek analysis, but France is far more user friendly and stylistically better. It is also slightly more up-to-date in terms of interacting with secondary sources (published in 2007).

Mark: Top spot on Mark also goes to R.T. France; this time in the NIGTC series. I cannot say enough good things about this one. It’s detailed, well structured and surprisingly pastor friendly for a more technical commentary. I was using Mark for my lenten series in 2013, and this commentary was beautiful both in terms of its usefulness, but also as an inspiring read, capturing Mark’s storytelling style and emphasis.

Luke: Joel B. Green’s volume in the NICNT series is the best single-volume commentary on Luke. Luke is not easy to condense into a single volume and still be sufficiently detailed, but Green’s commentary doesn’t feel like it’s lacking. If you are open to going to a multi-volume set (and financially able to) , I’d suggest Joseph A. Fitzmyer’s 2 volume Anchor Bible commentary, which is strong on both historical background and history of interpretation, while still bringing his own solid exegetical insight.

John: Raymond E. Brown’s 2 Volume Anchor Bible commentary is preferred for more technical stuff, and even though it’s been out for a long time, it is still relevant and useful. Craig Keener’s 2 volume commentary is exceptional on contextual issues, but less helpful for most of what I do (sermon prep) since it is so exhaustive and time consuming. For preachers and lay readers, I highly recommend F.F. Bruce’s stand alone. All that said, for the best balanced, user-friendly, current, and all around best, I suggest the recent (2015) volume by Marianne Meye Thompson (New Testament Library).

Acts: Here, I recommend two in particular. One is Ben Witherington III’s Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Though focused on historical context and rhetorical style, rather than exposition, this still provides a lot of helpful exegesis. The other is Joseph A. Fitzmyer’s Anchor Bible volume, which has a very extensive introduction, detailed notes throughout on background and intertextuality, as well a very robust theological interpretation.

Romans: my preference is the NIGTC volume by Richard Longenecker, released in 2016. The phrase “game-changer” gets thrown around a lot, but in this case, it fits. Longenecker is sensitive to the New Perspective on Paul, and incorporates much of that research to balance out traditional reformed readings of Romans. Unlike most NIGTC volumes, Longenecker includes a “contextualization” section, helping bring the meaning of the 1st century Greek text into the present, as well as a “biblical theology” section which helps place a specific pericope within the broader world of biblical theology.

1 Corinthians: a tricky epistle to nail down sometimes, with a few “touchy” subjects covered and a lot of hermeneutical puzzles. I love Richard Hays’ Interpretation series volume. That series has some serious short-comings, but Hays is exceptional, and generally holds to the same positions as myself on some of the tough hermeneutical issues with 1 Cor. The one shortfall is lack of depth on the Greek text (not within the scope of the series, but in 1 Cor there are significant translation and manuscript issues). The best semi-technical, and probably best all-around option is Gordon Fee’s NICNT (2nd edition, 2014), which I absolutely love. This is everything a good commentary should be. Thiselton’s NIGTC, which is incredibly thorough (which isn’t always helpful when sermon prepping with a time crunch) has some formatting weirdness, and a lot of excurses, but is a great technical option.

2 Corinthians: Frank Matera’s New Testament Library volume has been the one I’ve used most, and would probably be my first choice. It’s less well known, but still a very good commentary. It’s fairly technical, but manageable for someone with only basic level Greek, and even someone with no Greek can still get much from this one. David Garland’s NAC is the other one I’d recommend, even though I think the intro is a bit too brief. I think the exegesis is a bit more useful for preaching and bible study than Matera.

Galatians: I have two standouts for Galatians, which I have trouble deciding between. F.F. Bruce’s (NIGTC) is stellar, but has a formatting problem- all the technical data is embedded in the text of his exegesis, not in footnotes (in the introduction footnotes are used, but in the commentary itself, lots of footnote worthy material is in the text) and is now somewhat out of date (1982, so very little interaction with the New Perspective, since the NPP is generally dated to begin with the publication of Sanders’ Paul and Palestinian Judaism in 1977). I also really like Richard Longenecker’s WBC volume, but find it not always great for sermon prep, in part because WBC’s formatting is hardly user friendly, but it includes some New Perspective elements which Bruce did not.

Ephesians: Klyne Snodgrass’ NIVAC is among the best all-around, useful, and theologically engaging commentaries on my shelves. It is stupendous; inspiring, concise and still sufficently detailed. It captures the beauty of the christological emphasis of Ephesians in a way which is incredible. I would seriously encourage all pastors doing anything with Ephesians to have this one.

Philippians: Gordon Fee’s NICNT is definitely the best option I’ve used. The fantastic introduction covers the context and genre extremely well. The exegesis balances technical detail with useful exposition for preaching. Fee is one of those scholars who is immensely brilliant, but can still write for a pastor incredibly well, and this comes through in his commentary.

Colossians: On Colossians, James D.G. Dunn’s NIGTC on Colossians and Philemon is my favourite, but I find myself disagreeing with some of Dunn’s conclusions (which typically doesn’t happen) epsecially on authorship (Dunn’s degree of certainty against Pauline authorship is, in my opinion, unjustified). Overall his exegesis is sound and highly detailed. However, I find he comes up a tad short on Philemon.

1 & 2 Thessalonians: My first choice is F.F. Bruce’s WBC volume. Although it’s now 30+ years old, it still hasn’t been surpassed by anything I’ve read.

Pastorals: here I always used go with William Mounce’s WBC first. Mounce’s introduction and discussion of authorship issues is very good, and he interacts throughout with the varying perspectives on authorship and how that may affect interpretation, and is very balanced and charitable. Overall Mounce covers controversial issues with the content well and graciously, but I do disagree with his complementarian reading of 1 Tim. 2:11-15. Luke Timothy Johnson’s Anchor Bible volume (which doesn’t include Titus) is probably my preferred choice now. I also highly recommend Philip Towner’s NICNT volume, which is the most user friendly, but sometimes a bit needlessly long and drawn out.

Philemon: While volumes dedicated to Philemon alone are not plentiful, and many commentaries on Colossians and Philemon together cover Philemon fairly well (in particular, David Garland’s NIVAC on Colossians & Philemon does a good job on Philemon), Philemon rarely gets the coverage it deserves. The two commentaries on Philemon alone which are excellent options are Joseph Fitzmyer’s Anchor Bible volume, and the more recent NICNT volume by Scot McKnight. McKnight is geared more towards a pastoral audience, and is probably the better option for preaching, and spends more time examining ancient slavery as part of Paul’s historical reality and how he navigates that. Fitzmyer is more technical and covers the history of interpretation in more detail.

Hebrews: Luke Timothy Johnson’s New Testament Library volume is immensely helpful. It is sound exegetically, and has a very strong introduction to help with the difficulties of nailing down Hebrews’ context, genre, and rhetorical style. All around, it is among my favourite commentaries on any book of the bible I have on my shelves.

James: For the best, most comprehensive introduction, Luke Timothy Johnson’s Anchor Bible is the stand out. Scot McKnight’s NICNT volume is a solid, and innovative approach (he very intentionally doesn’t filter James through Paul and protestant readings of Paul, but lets James stand on its own terms, rather than spending lots of time trying to reconcile the two). McKnight is detailed in the introduction, but not as extensive as Johnson, but sets the context well. McKnight’s approach to the text illuminates the unity of what has often been considered a disjointed text, and the format is more user friendly than the AB. If you want just one commentary, I would suggest that McKnight is the best overall option, with Johnson a very, very close second. But if you can, get both.

1 Peter: I would highly recommend I. Howard Marshall’s IVPNTC, even though I do have several more in-depth treatments (Ramsey, Jobes, Donelson, and Davids). The series is certainly not comprehensive or exhaustive. But Marshall’s 1 Peter commentary is excellent, and captures well the theological thrust of the epistle. Marshall is a top notch scholar, but has managed to put together a more popular level commentary without “dumbing down”, which is not an easy task. Peter Davids NICNT would be my more in-depth choice.

2 Peter/Jude: Richard Bauckham’s WBC is certainly the best I’ve worked with. Bauckham’s expertise in Jewish Apocalyptic writings and eschatology make him the best person to comment on these two texts.

Johanine Epistles: 1 John still holds a special place in my heart. My first sermon at Centre Street was on 1 John 1:1-8. The first scripture verse I ever memorized was 1 John 5:13. The best commentary I have used on the Johanine Epistles is Stephen Smalley’s WBC revised edition, released in 2007. It is current, solid, comprehensive, and reliable. If you don’t do Greek, Marianne Meye Thompson’s IVPNTC is a very good non-technical option.

Revelation: Three of my volumes on Revelation standout. No one volume gets everything right. For an easier to use commentary on the Greek text, Stephen Smalley’s stand alone volume is very solid, though not as comprehensive as G.K. Beale and David Aune, but much easier to use, however, he leans a bit too much towards preterism than I like. Aune’s 3 volume WBC set is great for contextual issues, and very thorough, but heavy slogging, and the introduction is so detailed, I would think the only readers for whom most of it is relevant would be those doing doctoral research. Beale’s NIGTC is a good option; more in-depth than Smalley, but not as overwhelming as Aune. While not actually commentaries, Michael Gorman’s Reading Revelation Responsibly and Richard Bauckham’s The Theology of the Book of Revelation are great aids for hermeneutical issues.

This entry was posted in books, commentaries, hermeneutics, New Testament, Stuff I Like, theology. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to New Testament Commentary Picks

  1. I’ll take a look at my shelf when I get back from holiday though I am migrating to Logos. Of course these days… in the land of social media I prefer to go to trusted academics

  2. Correction: I’m not writing the Two Horizons commentary on Acts. I don’t know who is. I’m doing the Two Horizons on John.

  3. Right. My mistake. Thanks Dr. Bauckham. Not sure how you stumbled across my humble little blog, but thanks.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s